All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5120 Decided September 9, 2010[Guaranteed Debt] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] The principle of construing standardized contract in favor of the customers [2] As long as it is fair and rational under the intent and purpose of a standardized credit guarantee contract to construe that trade finance which the foreign exchange bank handled without following the Bank of Korea Credit Line Trade Finance Handling Detailed Rules and the Bank of Korea trade Credit Line Handling Procedure violated ""kinds of credit guaranteed loan"" which is a credit guarantee condition of the standardized credit guarantee contract, it can not be seen that the pertinent provision of the standardized credit guarantee contract has an unclear aspect and thus, it leaves no room to apply the principle of interpretation in favor of the customer under Article 5 (2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act [3] The case affirming the judgment below that where the foreign exchange bank did not request the export L/C to an export company at the time of establishing a domestic L/C with the export credit guarantee certificate as collateral, and executed trade finance in excess of the loan amount and further did not state trade finance handling fact at the back of the export L/C, and thereby violated procedural requirements under Bank of Korea Credit Line Trade Finance Handling Detailed Rules and Bank of Korea trade Credit Line Handling Procedure, trade finance on the above basis dose not constitute the export credit guarantee certificate's object of credit guarantee, and accordingly, the defendant does not bear any guarantee liability pursuant to an exemption provision of the standardized contract in this case [4] It is natural to construe that the exemption ground - ""the case where a bank violated a credit guarantee condition"" in the standardized credit guarantee ... | |
